Gears of War : Ultimate Edition only Windows 10 TH2 Exlc.

Gears of War Ultimate Edition with Win10 TH2 DX12 8GB RAM exclusivity.

DSOG

Spoiler: JOKE

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 – version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i5 @ 2.7Ghz or AMD FX 6-core
• Memory: 8 GB RAM (2 GB VRAM)
• Graphics: Geforce GTX 650 Ti or Radeon R7 260x
• Hard Drive: 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR 1920X1080P

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 – version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i5 @3.5GHz+ or AMD FX 8-core
• Memory: 16 GB RAM (4 GB VRAM)
• Graphics: GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290X
• Hard Drive: 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR 4K

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 – version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i7 @ 4Ghz or AMD FX 8-core
• Memory: 16 GB RAM (6+ GB VRAM)
• Graphics: Geforce GTX 980 Ti or Radeon R9 390X
• Hard Drive: SSD + 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

4GHz & DX12 ? ROFL

With all that GTX 970 for an FHD experience, 980Ti for 4K, Is it an Oculus rift or what ? without any exe / mods this game is DOA.
Seems like they want to unify the the XB1 and WindozeX's ultimate gaming rektperience..

 

Another game I won't play.
Can't say I care...

 

i want to play this. i had the original version on pc ages ago....it had more levels than the 360 version.

 

at this rate we may as well get acquainted with the Windows store now. Been waiting ages for this.

 

the store page in the DSOG link is broken.

people on this link are blowing it out of proportion ... again!

 

MS really is desperate.

 

if they brought the master chief collection to windows 10 then they might gain some converts

 

I don't know that Halo was ever that successful on Windows. Maybe next Halo will be Win 10 Dx12 exclusive too!

 

It makes sense. Valve is eating their lunch. Why wouldn't MS want to retain those profits for themselves. Much like EA. I'm not analyzing the execution of the plan and the software involved, just the business decision.

Sent from a 128th Legion Stormtrooper 6P

 

60GB of space and 16GB of RAM? Get da frack outta here.

 

With DX12 optimization ? Hell no !!

This DX12 is a pure gimmick ! nothing more than an advertisement for WinX desperation...

 

Nope, still not happening.

Isn't it kinda norm these days? Well, more or less.

 

I could just play the old version and basta.. too high req..

 

True, but does MS really believe by requiring Windows 10 that will help matters at all? It just shows how stupid and desperate they really are. Not to mention the ludicrous system requirements. They are literally selling to an audience of thousands, not millions.

Microsoft just needs to stop trying to be like everyone else and be their own man that dominated the market for so many decades. They are only pissing people off. They could own the market by continuing to offer what users WANT and NEED in an OS instead of shoving stuff down our throats that clearly people don't want any part of.

Windows 10 is FREE * yet it still only has less than 10% of the market share (and how much is that users trying and bailing?) and a wholly unsupported 15 year old OS (XP) that still dominates it as well. Not to mention the continued wide praises of Windows 7. How hard is it for them to realize this? I showed my 1st and 2nd grader the pie chart of OS market share and asked them which piece of pie people liked the most, they said XP and 7. Brilliant!



*=Sell your soul to the devil

/end rant

 

Valve did the same thing by making everyone that wanted HL2 download steam. Look where they are now.

Win 10 is really good, I don't mind. If I feel like buying GoW I'll go there and grab it. If not, no. I couldn't care less really.

Sent from a 128th Legion Stormtrooper 6P

 

This is actually true.
And I remember people hated it back in the day.

 

Halo 2 being Vista only really killed that game's chances of success on PC. I'm sure we won't see the MCC because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Valve =/= OS

It is a distribution platform, not an operating system, and worked on XP or 2000 or 7 or Vista. Yes, SteamOS is in the works, but it wasn't even a dream at the time Valve did this. Imagine if Valve had started a new OS that nobody cared for but required that AND Steam in order to play Half-Life 2. It would have failed miserably.

 

Half life 3 requiring steamos would be a crazy move on their part but I don't foresee them doing that. They don't want to alienate their customers.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Gears of wars ! On PC!!!
I am all for it. But after getting a new machine. And as for windows X, i know that sooner or later we will have to embrace it.

 

thats only the first one you know, i mean all the hype..

 

I dont know much about GOW. I have only seen some footage and I liked it.

 

this isn't the first time it has come to PC....the only issue is following games not coming to pc.

 

yeap we need the full series, and halo hahaha another HD remaster stuff already done for XB1 portage

 

Can we maybe get Uncharted and The Last Of Us instead? Pretty please.

 

no for the same reason that sony and MS have: they want you to buy their damn consoles.

 

Got this for XB1, it's pretty good, but I loved the original so maybe I'm not a fair case.

But, regarding Windows 10, I simply don't get the backlash and tired of the same old crap... all those people that are still using 7 in your graph HATED it at launch too, and swore XP would never die yadayadayada.

Same with 10, it's actually better, just people are slow to react or adapt. That's all that chart shows to me.

 

MGS V made it, so maybe there's still some hope.

Oh, I don't like there this is going...

 

Yup! Except they aren't desperate enough to optimize... with DirectX 12... which is SOLD as "optimization incarnate". A GTX 970? For 1080p? When Xbox 1 does 1080p 30fps and (what I assume to be) "high" graphics fidelity (it won't be "low, let's be absolutely honest here, please) with a R7 260 with a 150MHz DOWNCLOCK? Yeah no. They can jump off three bridges with that one. I don't care if the 970 is "midranged" or not... if it appears on consoles with a mix of "medium" and "high" at 900p or above, then min reqs have no right being anywhere near a GTX 660 or anything near that. A 660 should handle console-level visuals at the same res and FPS. Same for a 7850 or a 7870/R9 270X. A 780 or 970 or 290/290X/390 is sufficiently stronger than the consoles such that no game should need more than it for 60fps on a 30fps console title at the same (or likely even a bit better visual fidelity, since if you unlock the FPS on a console it usually will run ABOVE 30 most of the time it's normally at 30; I've seen people do this on the Wii, even unlocking graphics options for CoD: Black Ops 1 on the Wii, improving the game though dropping it below the intended fps sometimes with the extra settings on, but not ALL the time) or maxing a PC title on a 60fps console title. I wouldn't say 120fps on a 60fps title, because that's harder than doubling 30 to 60, but it should be pretty good for it.

Actually, Halo 1 on PC was rather wildly popular and has a bunch of people still playing today. Halo 2 died quick because Vista-only (though it was possible to hack it to run on Windows XP, but most people didn't bother.

MGS V is not a Sony or Microsoft IP. Otherwise Nintendo wouldn't have had the original Metal Gear games, and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, a re-imagining of MGS1 on the MGS2 engine on the Gamecube wouldn't have happened.

TLOU and Uncharted are Sony-owned IPs, and they want you to buy their consoles. It's the same reason Dark Souls isn't "Demon Souls 2". Demon Souls is a Sony IP, and is PS3 only. Dark Souls is not, and is multi-platform. Bloodborne is a Sony IP, and thus is PS4-only, even though the same company released Dark Souls 2 on FIVE platforms (PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox 1 and TWICE on PC).

 

I find it strange when people complain about MS doing something, but not a single peep when Sony does the same thing.

People cried over MS getting a timed exclusive on ROTTR but not a single peep when Sony did the same thing for SFV which is actually a PS4 exclusive.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

SF5 ps4 exclusive ? oO
Console exclusive yes. And it's M$ fault for not having it.

As for me, i don't mind W10 only. But if it's windows store only, there is no way. ****ty sandbox, no mods, no overlay, no injection, no sli/cfx profiles, no exclusive fullscreen, no gsync/freesync, 15% decrease perfs because of this damn sandbox. Windows store is by far the worst store ever made. I'll never ever give a single $ on this.

 

SF5 is not PS4 exclusive, it's also on the master race platform..

 

The problem there is that PC is not a direct competitor to the consoles.

One could say the same for Sony not fronting the money for ROTTR.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

BINGO! Ding Ding Ding Ding! For some reason MS doesn't understand that concept. It's an easy concept to grasp isn't it?

 

Actually, Capcom first came to MS AND sony to make their game crossplay on all platforms. Sony said yes, MS said no, and sony jumped on this to get the moneyhat.

 

There's a big difference. Sony as the publisher not wanting it cross platform is understandable. For a while they even made games for PS3 *AND* PS4 (and even today) to capture the largest market on THEIR platform, so they could increase sales of THEIR hardware.

With Microsoft they are requiring an OS of THEIR own that is highly unpopular and segregating a large population of possible buyers because they refuse to make it available for THEIR earlier OS's that consume a large majority of the market share. I mean MS still makes/publishes game titles for both X360 and X1, only unless it's not technically feasible , or too many compromises will be made (which has beeen more common in the last year or so).

DirectX 12 isn't bringing anything to the table that DX11 can't handle and clearly no advantage from a lesser hardware requirement standpoint. Heck Windows Store is even available on Win 8.1, so why not make it available to those users too?

 

Even if its not OS locked like you said HTWingNut, it's locked to a store that bring a lot of problems and limitations..

 

Well, timed exclusive or exclusive from a non-1st-party IP? That's different than a 1st party IP. It's also different from SF V, which is on PC as well. Xbox 1 people got pretty mad too, but gamers fail to realize who is really at fault.

Rise of the Tomb Raider got a timed exclusive because they wanted more money and Micro$haft funded some. Gamers didn't buy Tomb Raider 2013 enough, so that's their fault (though Tomb Raider 2013 had no replay value and a crappy, half-assed multiplayer, so I don't blame gamers much).

SF5 wanted cross platform for a game where everybody should run the game the same (60fps), but Microsoft didn't want it, so Crapcom said "yeah ok, you stay there". Gamers should be mad at Micro$haft, but they won't be, and would blame Crapcom instead.

It's all relative I say. People don't know who to blame and for what.

 

With such CPU requirements you're dead on. No benefit of DX12 what-so-ever, and I think I wasted a perfectly good W7P key for this crap (W10 and DX12).

 

I don't know, man. I replayed TR2013 three or so times. Yes, it had a lot of annoyances in gameplay/story department, but it's also one of the kind game on PC (inb4 boobs/ass comments).
And not every game needs a multiplayer. I rather have a polished single player than a tacked on multiplayer mode.

 

I didn't care a whole lot for TR2013, but this new one Rise of the Tomb Raider is great. I like it because I can just take my time doing things and no having to rush and so far not getting stuck on things that are too hard that you can't eventually figure them out. It's a little confusing at times with exactly what you need to do, well at least the side quests that tell you that you need some gadget to get past it and then thinking that if you progress the main story you'll never get a chance to go back, but eventually you can.

 

Well I mean I'm not saying you couldn't enjoy it, but it's a game where by endgame you're gonna be the same character, you know. No real differences in choices or story that'd make you replay.

And I know. That game DIDN'T need a multiplayer, but they hobbled one together and tossed it in.

 

You spoke my mind. I was wondering if I should comment, but if I did it would've been 1:1. I'm far away from the years of Quake melees and such. I prefer single player now and yes, TR'13 is replayble only because of the scenaries if you wish.

Since I'm adding to comments, to add to my previous - I hope that the future would bring us more DX12 optimized games and not this lame GET-W10-NOW move.

 

If my memory serves me right, TR2013 was actually very successful. It was no1. I remember a headline something like "Lara Croft is back where she belongs; on the top"

 

And yet I have no problem replaying Half-Life 2 every year. Same beginning, same middle, same end. The only choice you get is what to do with a soda can in the very beginning. But it doesn't bother me, because it's a fun game! And that's why I come back to it every year. Some goes for other linear games I replay.
Not every game need choices (or their illusion)/level ups/etc. to have a replay value. In fact, I've grown tired of games putting those just for the sake of having them. If a game can pull it of, sure, do it. But for me gameplay/story integrity come first. What good are choices if the game is crap.

To recap, this is me when I think about Fallout 4 gameplay/story:


And this is me when I think about Half-Life 2:

Judging by DLCs, I think they hoped it would be popular, so they could sell lots of crap. Guess that didn't work, because this time around they are releasing DLCs for other stuff and cut the multiplayer.

Looking at these and QB specs, what optimisation?

 

Once-a-year playthrough of a somewhat chaotic and fun 18-hour-or-so campaign is a bit different than how games now really are, though.

 

What's wrong with modern games, again? You are gonna give me nostalgia crap now, won't you?
Yes, there are some questionable stuff going on (crap DLCs, microtransactions, cut content in sake of said DLCs, etc.), but I think there are enough good games (ones which also don't suffer from moder day gaming plague) now as there were "back in the day."
I enjoy TR2013 as much as I enjoy HL2.

 

I don't care about "nostalgia crap". I just find that many new titles are rather short with little replay value in general for single-player-only games, and yet they expect people to buy them like hotcakes left and right, at full price.

Games cost too much and people tend to focus on graphics more than gameplay lately, especially with single player only titles. If you enjoy tomb raider 2013 as much as Half Life 2, that's great. Most people don't, and most people wouldn't pay full price for such a title. I'm just making it as a general statement. It's why single player games usually tend to do really badly these days. People want a reason to go beyond a simple let's play on youtube.

 

If I run my imagination wild I'll say that these games have only one reference to DX12 libraries and it's not used in game, rather just to require DX12 during installation. It's just a REALLY wild guess on my part. So yes, I still hope for better DX12 optimized games and less CPU requirements in future.

 

I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one, so your "general statement" might be a bit off.